Matrix Games Forums

Some questions in return...

Does the +2 defensive modifier for infantry for "Any Forest' include Light Woods ?
How large an area (hexes) are you painting here ?
Are there significant areas of sloped ground/hills involved ?

Visually, I like Light Woods instead of Cropland - in any scenario.
They have the same movement costs, so if there's a large area, I'd consider sections of cropland, interspersed with sections of Light Woods.  If the def. modifier applies, that's another argument for a combination of sections.
If there hills involved, and defined areas of level ground, I'd put the Light Woods on the hills, and cropland on the level areas.

I also suspect that there would be less olive trees in the 1940's.  You can see the density shift in different parts of the pic above.  My guess is that density is related to 'closeness to irrigation/underground water' and also to maturity (larger trees have more room cut between them).  In the 1940's I'd guess the dense areas would be groves, where the sparse areas would be cropland.  (In those days, the olive trade was not as large as presently and the need for growing local grain crops was stronger.)

But hey, 90% Light Woods and 10% Cropland would work for me.

No advice, but I can give an opinion [;)]

If line of sight would be obscured to any degree, and off road movement is reduced, then I guess you would go with light woods.

If line of sight is good but off road movement is reduced, then I would guess the cropland would be used.

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

No advice, but I can give an opinion [;)]

If line of sight would be obscured to any degree, and off road movement is reduced, then I guess you would go with light woods.

If line of sight is good but off road movement is reduced, then I would guess the cropland would be used.

Actually, Cropland is Restricted Vision, while Light Woods is Normal Vision. So, Cropland would be worse for line-of-sight.

Cropland is restricted vision? So a soybean field makes it hard to see the Sherman on the other side? Even a fully mature cornfield isn't tall enough to hide most MBT except maybe the hull. Infantry can hide in almost anything. Not that most crops in Europe that will keep you from easily spotting most vehicles. Fields in the winter are vastly different than fields in July or August. Nothing is growing there in the winter so how can vision be restricted? I don't seem to recall the game making provisions for time of year for crops.

I really don't see why a farmer's field restricts vision when it's so obviously crop and season dependent not to mention what type of unit.

Anyway, seems with all the roads through that terrain in the picture shouldn't be anything but clear. Not consistently enough trees or fields and the fields don't appear to be fields at all but orchards with trees lined up in nice neat rows providing decent firing lanes. Now if it were a tactical map...

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Cropland is restricted vision? So a soybean field makes it hard to see the Sherman on the other side? Even a fully mature cornfield isn't tall enough to hide most MBT except maybe the hull. Infantry can hide in almost anything. Not that most crops in Europe that will keep you from easily spotting most vehicles. Fields in the winter are vastly different than fields in July or August. Nothing is growing there in the winter so how can vision be restricted? I don't seem to recall the game making provisions for time of year for crops.

I really don't see why a farmer's field restricts vision when it's so obviously crop and season dependent not to mention what type of unit.

The season issue has to be handled by the designer. You don't use Cropland in a winter scenario. And Norm would tell you that TOAW wasn't designed to handle year-long scenarios. That he was ignored wouldn't matter to him. (Maybe someday there will be a version that handles it, though.) It's up to the designer to apply it to the right cases as well - corn yes, soybean no, etc.

Clearly, a field of crops is pretty restricted vision for non-vehicles (AT gun &, APGs, for example). And if you have even a little roll to the terrain, or your AFV is dug-in, that would apply to most defending AFVs, too. So, your modern MBT, with its super optics, still gets ambushed at 100m or less - losing a big part of its edge.

I see. So then cropland in an Italian campaign might not be a good idea since it started in September. Except maybe for vineyards. It's not like they're rice fields.

@ Curtis,
So the Light Woods Def. Modifier for Infantry is because of unrestricted vision, vs. Cropland having restricted vision, removes that advantage for the defender ?

ORIGINAL: ogar

@ Curtis,
So the Light Woods Def. Modifier for Infantry is because of unrestricted vision, vs. Cropland having restricted vision, removes that advantage for the defender ?

Neither Light Woods nor Cropland have any DF modifier for infantry. Also, Light Woods is Normal Vision, not Unrestricted (AKA Open Vision). I think vision type only affects AT combat via the "Chance to Hit" value. See section 19.2 in the manual.

ORIGINAL: ogar

I also suspect that there would be less olive trees in the 1940's.  You can see the density shift in different parts of the pic above.  My guess is that density is related to 'closeness to irrigation/underground water' and also to maturity (larger trees have more room cut between them).  In the 1940's I'd guess the dense areas would be groves, where the sparse areas would be cropland.  (In those days, the olive trade was not as large as presently and the need for growing local grain crops was stronger.)

Very good points. However, agriculture has been intesified by the Fascists since 1922. Also, the absence of surface water over large areas led to the construction of the Apulian Aqueduct (1906–39). But i would think you're right about the olive trade.

ORIGINAL: ogar
If there hills involved, and defined areas of level ground, I'd put the Light Woods on the hills, and cropland on the level areas.

And this is what i did further south in Calabria. There, however, the olive/citrus/vineyard density is not as dense as in Puglia, especially not as dense as in the area northwest and west of Brindisi.

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

If line of sight would be obscured to any degree, and off road movement is reduced, then I guess you would go with light woods.

If line of sight is good but off road movement is reduced, then I would guess the cropland would be used.

It was a good point until Bob showed up...[:D][;)]

However, the manual states (19.2 - Notes on combat resolution):

Open Vision locations have no precipitation
and no terrain other than Open, Arid, Roads, Rivers, Rocky, Escarpments, Canals, or Sandy.
Restricted Vision locations have Heavy Precipitation, Heavy Cultivated, Urban, Urban Ruin, or
Forest terrain

That would leave light woods and cropland (light cultivated) as normal vision.


But maybe this contemporary photo settles the discussion..i would say that qualifies for light forest, occasionally intersected with cropland.



It's from this website: http://www.bridgepugliausa.it/articolo. ... &lingua=en and its caption says:"Panoramic view of the plain studded with age-old olive trees that stretches between Monopoli, Fasano, Ostuni and Carovigno." The screenshot from google maps i posted earlier is from that area (roughly).

On the map this would be here (red oval):




EDIT: light woods are apparently no forest terrain - changed the according phrase in the post..

ORIGINAL: Lobster

I see. So then cropland in an Italian campaign might not be a good idea since it started in September. Except maybe for vineyards. It's not like they're rice fields.

Something to think about. Have you ever been in Italy? It's really rough. Well, not everywhere, but it is quite "vegetated".. Also note that in the Calabrian peninsula i used cropland in the plains and light woods in the hills for the usual mixture of cropland, olive and other fruit cultures and vineyards.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ogar

@ Curtis,
So the Light Woods Def. Modifier for Infantry is because of unrestricted vision, vs. Cropland having restricted vision, removes that advantage for the defender ?

Neither Light Woods nor Cropland have any DF modifier for infantry. Also, Light Woods is Normal Vision, not Unrestricted (AKA Open Vision). I think vision type only affects AT combat via the "Chance to Hit" value. See section 19.2 in the manual.

So light woods do not count as forest? Or?

ORIGINAL: Telumar

However, the manual states (19.2 - Notes on combat resolution):

Open Vision locations have no precipitation
and no terrain other than Open, Arid, Roads, Rivers, Rocky, Escarpments, Canals, or Sandy.
Restricted Vision locations have Heavy Precipitation, Heavy Cultivated, Urban, Urban Ruin, or
Forest terrain

That would leave light woods and cropland (light cultivated) as normal vision.

That section of the manual is the only place where the word "cultivated" occurs. So, that begs the question of what did Norm mean by "Heavy Cultivated". I don't know what it could mean other than Cropland.

ORIGINAL: Telumar

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ogar

@ Curtis,
So the Light Woods Def. Modifier for Infantry is because of unrestricted vision, vs. Cropland having restricted vision, removes that advantage for the defender ?

Neither Light Woods nor Cropland have any DF modifier for infantry. Also, Light Woods is Normal Vision, not Unrestricted (AKA Open Vision). I think vision type only affects AT combat via the "Chance to Hit" value. See section 19.2 in the manual.

So light woods do not count as forest? Or?

That was my interpretation - though, as in the case of Cropland, we can only infer what Norm meant. Maybe Ralph can enlighten us.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Telumar

However, the manual states (19.2 - Notes on combat resolution):

Open Vision locations have no precipitation
and no terrain other than Open, Arid, Roads, Rivers, Rocky, Escarpments, Canals, or Sandy.
Restricted Vision locations have Heavy Precipitation, Heavy Cultivated, Urban, Urban Ruin, or
Forest terrain

That would leave light woods and cropland (light cultivated) as normal vision.

That section of the manual is the only place where the word "cultivated" occurs. So, that begs the question of what did Norm mean by "Heavy Cultivated". I don't know what it could mean other than Cropland.

As i understand it, 'heavy cultivated' refers to bocage terrain. its tile graphics is named 'tiles_h_cultivated.bmp/.png'. And there is normal cropland, tile name 'tiles_l_cultivated.bmp/.png

It also would make sense. Visibility in bocage terrain is very restricted as opposed to visibilty in cropland (not every field is corn - i do not know if corn was even cultivated in Europe in the 40ies but i doubt it).

ORIGINAL: Telumar

As i understand it, 'heavy cultivated' refers to bocage terrain. its tile graphics is named 'tiles_h_cultivated.bmp/.png'. And there is normal cropland, tile name 'tiles_l_cultivated.bmp/.png

It also would make sense. Visibility in bocage terrain is very restricted as opposed to visibilty in cropland (not every field is corn - i do not know if corn was even cultivated in Europe in the 40ies but i doubt it).

Ah! Ok, that's probably right. "Norm Translation" is a difficult field.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Telumar

As i understand it, 'heavy cultivated' refers to bocage terrain. its tile graphics is named 'tiles_h_cultivated.bmp/.png'. And there is normal cropland, tile name 'tiles_l_cultivated.bmp/.png

It also would make sense. Visibility in bocage terrain is very restricted as opposed to visibilty in cropland (not every field is corn - i do not know if corn was even cultivated in Europe in the 40ies but i doubt it).

Ah! Ok, that's probably right. "Norm Translation" is a difficult field.

Still the question of light woods counting as forest or not remains. From the graphic filenames it would appear it's not counted as forest.

ORIGINAL: Telumar

ORIGINAL: Lobster

I see. So then cropland in an Italian campaign might not be a good idea since it started in September. Except maybe for vineyards. It's not like they're rice fields.

Something to think about. Have you ever been in Italy? It's really rough. Well, not everywhere, but it is quite "vegetated".. Also note that in the Calabrian peninsula i used cropland in the plains and light woods in the hills for the usual mixture of cropland, olive and other fruit cultures and vineyards.

Yes, this is one of the unfortunate aspects of TOAW. No rough terrain. It's especially difficult for someone such as yourself who is making a map at a scale where a rough terrain tile would be a useful feature. Perhaps modifying an existing tile that would somewhat model rough terrain and that you wouldn't use for a map of Italy.

That panorama is very enlightening. It almost looks like a cross between light woods and forest. Visibility in those woods might be fairly restricted in some spots. Not in others.

Really really wonderful map here, keep up the good work!
If you need some advice or help with italian language sources I can offer my services, I'm Italian and if needed I can try to translate some information that you may need. I'm interested to give a look to the Italian allied-sided units OOB, if needed I have some italian and english sources to share on the subject.

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: Telumar

ORIGINAL: Lobster

I see. So then cropland in an Italian campaign might not be a good idea since it started in September. Except maybe for vineyards. It's not like they're rice fields.

Something to think about. Have you ever been in Italy? It's really rough. Well, not everywhere, but it is quite "vegetated".. Also note that in the Calabrian peninsula i used cropland in the plains and light woods in the hills for the usual mixture of cropland, olive and other fruit cultures and vineyards.

Yes, this is one of the unfortunate aspects of TOAW. No rough terrain. It's especially difficult for someone such as yourself who is making a map at a scale where a rough terrain tile would be a useful feature. Perhaps modifying an existing tile that would somewhat model rough terrain and that you wouldn't use for a map of Italy.

That panorama is very enlightening. It almost looks like a cross between light woods and forest. Visibility in those woods might be fairly restricted in some spots. Not in others.

Regarding rough terrain only rocky came to my mind, but that has no combat effects, it only adds one MP to MP costs for entering the hex. While useful for really rough mountaineous terrain it's not so useful for the softer areas. If it would add no MP cost but a DF bonus then i would go with it for areas that are not plain flat as the coastal plains of Puglia i.e. but that also do not qualify as hills.

Visibility in Olive groves: Been there, restricts visibility in diagonal direction, but offers good fields of fire parallel to the tree lines. I think light woods matches it quite good.

ORIGINAL: frankieITA

Really really wonderful map here, keep up the good work!
If you need some advice or help with italian language sources I can offer my services, I'm Italian and if needed I can try to translate some information that you may need. I'm interested to give a look to the Italian allied-sided units OOB, if needed I have some italian and english sources to share on the subject.

Thanks for the offer, but as of now i have no Italian sources. Except maybe the website of the Istituto Geographica Militare: http://www.igmi.org/ancient/ which however is pretty self-explanatory.

But as you're from Italy you might have something to tell about terrain?